I feel like in this case, regulators should be able to re-substitute any of the "good" terms, with the "bad" terms when citing email evidence, since clearly, Google has now shown that phrases like "valuable to users" are synonyms in their parlance for "network effects".
Not exactly. The key idea of the training is that rank-and-file SWEs don't realize that words have legal meanings separate from their colloquial meanings, and they can cause undue trouble for the company and for themselves with poor word-choice. It's more about "Don't say the product is 'dominating the market' when you don't have any idea what your product's percent share is in the market or, for that matter, how 'ma…
> "Bad: the defensive rationale for this acquisition is clear: Get ahead of the competition and cut off their access to the target's product"
> "Good: The rationale for this acquisition is clear: Integrate the target with Google and improve our products for users"
It takes some pretty serious mental gymnastics to believe someone writing a document explaining why Google should perform an acquisition, would not know why Google should perform an acquisition.